Bengal SIR Row: TMC Claims Victory Margins Lower Than Deleted Votes in 31 Seats

The legal dispute surrounding the West Bengal Assembly election results and the voter list revision process has once again intensified in the country's highest court. The Trinamool Congress (TMC) informed the Supreme Court on Monday that a significant number of votes were deleted during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in the state, which had a direct impact on the election outcomes. The party claimed that in several assembly seats, the margin of victory was much smaller than the number of votes removed from the electoral rolls under the SIR process, while recognizing the gravity of the matter, the Supreme Court has granted permission to the TMC to file new applications regarding this specific aspect.

TMC's Arguments on SIR and Victory Margins

During the hearing in the Supreme Court, senior advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, representing the TMC, presented crucial facts before the bench. He stated that in 31 assembly seats in West Bengal, the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) victory margin was less than the number of individuals removed during the SIR adjudication process. The TMC argues that had these voters not been removed from the list, the election results could have been different. The party, led by Mamata Banerjee, explicitly told the court that the seats cancelled or affected under the SIR had a substantial and decisive impact on the overall election results of West Bengal.

Statistical Discrepancies and Electoral Impact

Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay sought to explain this discrepancy to the court through specific figures. Providing a concrete example, he noted that a candidate lost the election in a particular area by a margin of only 862 votes, while more than 5,432 names were removed from the voter list in that same area under the guise of the adjudication process. The TMC claimed that the total vote difference between the TMC and the BJP across the state was approximately 32 lakh, while nearly 35 lakh appeals are currently pending before the Appellate Tribunal. He also referred to a previous observation by Justice Bagchi, which suggested that if the victory margin was less than the number of deleted voters, the matter might require a thorough judicial inquiry.

Supreme Court's Directions and Election Commission's Stance

The bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi presided over the hearing. The bench directed Kalyan Bandyopadhyay to file an Interlocutory Application (IA) containing all necessary details. Justice Bagchi clarified that an independent IA would be required for any facts regarding the impact on election results and the deleted voters. On the other hand, senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, appearing for the Election Commission, strongly opposed the TMC's contentions. He argued that the appropriate remedy for such grievances is filing an election petition rather than pursuing the matter through the current legal route.

Status of the Appellate Tribunal and Future Timeline

The functioning of the Appellate Tribunal was also questioned during the proceedings, while kalyan Bandyopadhyay informed the bench that former High Court Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam has resigned from his position as a member of the Appellate Tribunal. To this, the CJI remarked that the court can't compel anyone, but the priority would be to ensure that the pending appeals are decided expeditiously. Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy informed the bench that at the current rate, it would take the Appellate Tribunal at least 4 years to dispose of all pending appeals. Finally, the bench stated that it would examine the matter if a proper application is filed and requested a report from the CJI to establish a timeline for resolving the appeals. Consequently, the matter has been adjourned.